Download Article PDF - IOPscience

The Astrophysical Journal, 783:64 (1pp), 2014 March 1
C 2014.
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/64
The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
ERRATUM: “TRANSITS AND OCCULTATIONS OF AN EARTH-SIZED
PLANET IN AN 8.5 hr ORBIT” (2013, ApJ, 774, 54)
Roberto Sanchis-Ojeda1 , Saul Rappaport1 , Joshua N. Winn1 , Alan Levine2 , Michael C. Kotson3 ,
David W. Latham4 , and Lars A. Buchhave5,6
1
Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
2 M.I.T. Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, 70 Vassar Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; [email protected]
3 Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
4 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
5 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
6 Centre for Star and Planet Formation, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen,
Øster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350 Copenhagen, Denmark
Received 2013 September 26; published 2014 February 13
In the published version of this paper, the planet orbiting KIC 8435766 is referred to as “Kepler-XXb.” The “XX” was intended to
be a placeholder for an official Kepler number, which had not yet been assigned. While the article was in its final editorial stages, this
planet was officially designated with the name “Kepler-78b” (see http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/KeplerNumbers.html).
However, the authors neglected to communicate the new name to the editors before the article went to press. Thus, every time that
“Kepler-XXb” appears in the text, in the figures, and in the tables, it should be read as “Kepler-78b.”
Additionally, there was a minor error in the description of the manner in which the flux time series were normalized in
Section 3.2. The recognition of this error does not alter the conclusions of the paper, but details are provided below to minimize
confusion for other investigators who might analyze the same data in the future.
The text in Section 3.2 states that during the normalization of the flux time series, the data from each quarter were divided by the
mean flux during that quarter. In fact, though, all of the data were divided by the maximum flux over the entire time series (including
all of the quarters). Therefore, even after normalization, each quarter of data had a different mean flux, ranging from 0.92 to 1. The
reason this is largely immaterial is that the data were subsequently analyzed with a model that included a “dilution parameter” specific
to each Kepler season, i.e., by the 90◦ rotations of the spacecraft. This was a constant flux that was added to the theoretical model,
which was then renormalized to unit during secondary eclipse, and then compared to the data. However, we note that the largest
changes in flux with Kepler quarter are cyclic by Kepler season. By fitting for these seasonal dilution parameters, the mean fluxes of
the various quarters were brought into agreement, though not by the exact method described in the paper.
The only (minor) difference between modeling the data as described, and as actually performed, is that the variations in mean flux
across quarters were actually brought into agreement by adding small constant fluxes instead of by multiplying by factors close to
unity. When the analysis was repeated as described in the published paper, the only affected parameters were those associated with
the phase curve, with δocc = 10.1 ± 1.2 (0.33σ change) and with Aill = 4.2 ± 0.5 (0.4σ change).
1